Only that which is dependent/empty is impermanent. Sidhartha was no longer dependent nor conditioned. As to the Buddha he says in the Lotus Sutra that he has already attained complete extinction with nothing remaining. That did not mean that he was extinct; only that he was extinct. Extinction/cessation without extinction. In his extinction he had become 1 and independent. [please note that this is theoretical and might not stand critical evaluation, but for now seems right to me. At least until a further layer of the onion is peeled off]. Thank you Malcolm for your kind suggestion that i one day write a sutra. Actually right now i am writing my 12th book of metaphysics, but I am still not sure that i can claim that kind of authority. This is since i do not possess what could be called enlightenment! I am unenlightened. Rgds, Tom.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
Vibhuticandra says much the same thing in his commentary on the Bodhicaryāvatāra:

With respect to the traces of emptiness, since ṡrāvakas and so on cannot bear the fact that all phenomena are empty, it is said they are liberated solely through seeing four truths of nobles. Since they obtain freedom only through the direct perception of the "truths" — suffering, the origin, the cessation, and the path— of what use to them is seeing emptiness?

This is a mistranslation. Here Vibhuti he is simply restating the shravakas objection to the Mahayana emptiness, which is 9.40ab of the Charyavatara, i.e. that emptiness is pointless because they meditate on the Four Truths instead. Vibhuti then gives the response (9.40cd), which as usual is to quote Mahayana sutras for the need to meditate on emptiness, and hence there follows a dispute about why the shravakas should accept the Mahayana sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
It is also somewhat foolish to assert that arhats realize the selflessness of phenomena when it has nothing at all to do with how they achieve their realization since they never even meditate the view of the emptiness of the person let alone emptiness in general.

This is contradicted by many masters, e.g. Mipham says in Beacon of Certainty, 'Our own position in that whatever types of shravakas and pratyekabuddhas appeared of yore and reached arhatship did not become liberated without realizing the emptiness of the self that is the apprehension of the aggregates; but just having that realization does not mean that they realized selflessness entirely.'

Malcolm wrote:
Vibhuticandra says much the same thing in his commentary on the Bodhicaryāvatāra:

With respect to the traces of emptiness, since ṡrāvakas and so on cannot bear the fact that all phenomena are empty, it is said they are liberated solely through seeing four truths of nobles. Since they obtain freedom only through the direct perception of the "truths" — suffering, the origin, the cessation, and the path— of what use to them is seeing emptiness?

This is a mistranslation. Here Vibhuti he is simply restating the shravakas objection to the Mahayana emptiness, which is 9.40ab of the Charyavatara, i.e. that emptiness is pointless because they meditate on the Four Truths instead. Vibhuti then gives the response (9.40cd), which as usual is to quote Mahayana sutras for the need to meditate on emptiness, and hence there follows a dispute about why the shravakas should accept the Mahayana sutras.

Which means that Śantideva is portraying śrāvakas as not meditating on emptiness directly.

sherabpa wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
It is also somewhat foolish to assert that arhats realize the selflessness of phenomena when it has nothing at all to do with how they achieve their realization since they never even meditate the view of the emptiness of the person let alone emptiness in general.

This is contradicted by many masters, e.g. Mipham says in Beacon of Certainty, 'Our own position in that whatever types of shravakas and pratyekabuddhas appeared of yore and reached arhatship did not become liberated without realizing the emptiness of the self that is the apprehension of the aggregates; but just having that realization does not mean that they realized selflessness entirely.'

But they do not meditate the emptiness of the person directly. They meditate on impermanence and so on. Emptiness of the person is the result they realize, it is not the view they meditate. Your Mipham quote agrees: "...did not become liberated without realizing the emptiness of the self that is the apprehension of the aggregates."

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Rakz wrote:Why couldn't Shakyamuni just mention this in the early texts if this was actually the case?

I gues you're using "early texts" to mean "Pali texts". The idea that there was one set of early material which we now call the Pali Canon and everything else is a later invention is not the position of buddhologists nor Mahayanists. All of the sets of teachings we now have are a blend of material, with decisions of the blenders about what to include or exclude determined by the needs of their own time, place and school.

Rakz wrote:Why couldn't Shakyamuni just mention this in the early texts if this was actually the case?

I gues you're using "early texts" to mean "Pali texts". The idea that there was one set of early material which we now call the Pali Canon and everything else is a later invention is not the position of buddhologists nor Mahayanists. All of the sets of teachings we now have are a blend of material, with decisions of the blenders about what to include or exclude determined by the needs of their own time, place and school.

From Wikipedia:

"Several scholars who specialize in the field of early Buddhism have said that much of the contents of the Pali Canon (and its main teachings) can be attributed to Gautama Buddha. Richard Gombrich says that the main preachings of the Buddha (as in the Vinaya and Sutta Pitaka) are coherent and cogent, and must be the work of a single genius: the Buddha himself, not a committee of followers after his death. Peter Harvey also affirms the authenticity of "much" of the Pali Canon. A.K. Warder has stated that there is no evidence to suggest that the shared teaching of the early schools was formulated by anyone else than the Buddha and his immediate followers."

Most if not all of these modern day scholars don't believe the same to be true for Mahayana texts. I don't anything myself personally so who am I to say they are wrong?

Malcolm wrote:
Here is a very nice expression of the emptiness of the person:

Then, from that neutral, impassive state of the citta, the nucleus of existence—the core of the knower—suddenly separated and fell away. Having finally been reduced to anattã, brightness and dullness and everything else were suddenly torn asunder and destroyed once and for all.

But I have to say, there is nothing there which is not anticipated by Mahāyāna critiques of the limitations of the śrāvaka teachings.

"Several scholars who specialize in the field of early Buddhism have said that much of the contents of the Pali Canon (and its main teachings) can be attributed to Gautama Buddha. Richard Gombrich says that the main preachings of the Buddha (as in the Vinaya and Sutta Pitaka) are coherent and cogent, and must be the work of a single genius: the Buddha himself, not a committee of followers after his death. Peter Harvey also affirms the authenticity of "much" of the Pali Canon. A.K. Warder has stated that there is no evidence to suggest that the shared teaching of the early schools was formulated by anyone else than the Buddha and his immediate followers."

Most if not all of these modern day scholars don't believe the same to be true for Mahayana texts. I don't anything myself personally so who am I to say they are wrong?

I guess this is somewhat off-topic though.

These are guesses which are probably ultimately founded on an individual's intuition. Just as in Christian studies, Buddhist studies is littered with people overestimating the accuracy of what amounts to historical speculation.

From wiki:

"Some scholars...say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha."

"Some scholars see the Pali Canon as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus."

"Many scholars have argued that this shared material can be attributed to the period of Pre-sectarian Buddhism."

"Ronald Davidson has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha. Geoffrey Samuel says the Pali Canon largely derives from the work of Buddhaghosa and his colleagues in the 5th century AD. Gregory Schopen argues that it is not until the 5th to 6th centuries CE that we can know anything definite about the contents of the Canon."

"The reliability of these sources, and the possibility to draw out a core of oldest teachings, is a matter of dispute. According to Tillman Vetter, the comparison of the oldest extant texts "does not just simply lead to the oldest nucleus of the doctrine."